“But there is also no doubt that such sacrifices and such a compromise cannot touch the essential; for though hegemony is ethical-political, it must also be economic, must necessarily be based on the decisive nucleus of economic activity” (211, Gramsci, “Hegemony, Intellectuals, and the State”)
Referring to Gramsci’s statement on hegemony’s root in economic activity, how does boycott shape the culture we live in? Why does it seem that boycotting and exerting economic pressure on politicians or the dominant force (whatever it may be) is the only catalyst for true change? Is that even true anymore in our current society, due to the rise of megacorporations exerting control over both their own and competitor goods/services through monopoly? Does this phenomenon extend outwards to (primarily) non-economic organizations such as politics?
In “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,” Althusser is pretty emphatic on the fact that Ideological State Apparatuses are separate from the Repressive State Apparatus. Instead, he states that the Repressive State Apparatus (encompassing penal modes of control such as the police force and prisons) have punishment as their primary motive. This differs from Ideological State Apparatuses, such as religion, education, the family, and political affiliations, which have ideals functioning as their primary motive. What are your opinions on Althusser’s differentiations between RSAs and ISAs? Are these boundaries hard and fast, or can there be specific ISAs that could be argued to have control via violence as their primary motive?
Comments
Post a Comment